WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> {naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama}
>
> definately still means that I ca klama. It's a seperate sentence,
> and sentences are veridical.

Oh, I see, I skipped a step. If
"mi punaijeca klama" means "naku mi pu klama .ije mi ca klama", then
it follows that "mi punai klama" means "naku mi pu klama", that's obvious.

I further claim that "mi punai la linuxepok. klama" means "It's false
that I went (there) before 1970-01-01T12:00:00 UTC", and finally that
"mi punai lo nu mi jbena kei klama" means "It's false that I went (there)
before the event of my birth".

> The version you snipped for BAI+NAI relegated the original bridi to
> a {lo nu} clause, which are, IIRC, *not* veridical.

Correct. But under negation *nothing* is veridical. I'm simply claiming
that "BAI nai" is equivalent to "naku ... BAI". IOW, "mi citka mu'inai lo nu
mi xagji" can mean that I don't eat at all, or merely that hunger isn't the
motivation for my eating: the contradictory negation leaves it vague.

--
It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held way in this
forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
--"The Passage of the Marshes" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan